Originally posted by skofarrell:
There was no hull loss. The aircraft in question had damage to the landing gear. My understanding is that the repair was completed and the plane in question is back in service.


Skofarrel: You are confusing total loss with hull loss. There was absolutely a hull loss, one that certainly cost a nice bit of change [have you priced a landing gear assembly lately?]. Total losses are very rare in commercial aviation. A $50M plane can have $20M in damage (and this can often happen even with passenger fatalities in say a runway overrun, ala AA MD-80 in Little Rock) and so long as the salvage is worth less than $30M, the plane is not a total loss.
In other words, whether or not a plane is a total loss vs. just a hull loss is usually more a function of salvage value than anything else. Dont confuse aviation with car insurance.


[This message has been edited by paullevi (edited 11-16-2001).]

paullevi,

For the purposes of this discussion ("Should I fly an A300 since I'm worried it may not be safe"), my definition of "Hull Loss" is lifted directly from the Boeing paper: Statistical Summary of Commercial Jet Airplane Accidents Worldwide Operations 1959 – 2000

Here's what they say:

Hull loss: Airplane damage that is substantial and is beyond economic repair. Hull loss also includes events in which:

• Airplane is missing.
• Search for the wreckage has been terminated without it being located.
• Airplane is substantially damaged and inaccessible.

Boeing says: "These definitions are consistent with those of the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) and International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO)."

I think you are confusing "Hull Loss" with "Substantial Damage" which Boeing describes as: "Damage or structural failure that adversely affects the structural strength, performance, or flight characteristics of the airplane and would normally require major repair or replacement of the affected component. Substantial damage is not considered to be:

• Engine failure or damage limited to an engine if only one engine fails or is damaged.
• Bent aerodynamic fairings.
• Dents in the skin.
• Damage to landing gear.
• Damage to wheels.
• Damage to tires.
• Damage to flaps."

So the TransAT flight is considered by Boeing to be "not relevent/not reportable" for their statistics (or this discussion), since the damage did not "adversely affect the structural strength, performance, or flight characteristics of the airplane."

I'm sure the TransAT Pax and Crew thought it was a bigger deal than Boeing does.


[This message has been edited by skofarrell (edited 11-16-2001).]

skofarrell:

The TransAt flight would not be considered by Boeing at all, it was an A330.

I'll just say without citation thay my definition is the prevailing one used in both the legal and aviation worlds.

Actually it would, take a look at the Boeing paper I've linked above, it covers all commercial aircraft.

With regards to "Hull Loss", doesn't Boeing's statement: "These definitions are consistent with those of the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) and International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO)." count for anything?

Doesn't "Loss" connotate something a lot more severe than simple damage?


[This message has been edited by skofarrell (edited 11-16-2001).]

Here is the FAA incident report about the severe turbulence which N14053 encountered on 11/28/1994.

http://makeashorterlink.com/?N20931B2

[This message has been edited by UA*AA (edited 11-16-2001).]

UA*AA,

There's a nifty website called http://www.makeashorterlink.com that makes long links short (duh) and infopop accessable.

[This message has been edited by skofarrell (edited 11-16-2001).]

I was just fixing it as you were typing. It makes things so much easier.

skofarrell, Nice link to the makeashorterlink.com, thanks.

I finally found a UBB "editor" (for Mac) that is a third-party freeware. It allows me to compose my post in a window and does all the bolding, italics, quotes and links as text in pretty much one click (sorry, off topic).

The severe turbulence incident happened seven years ago! Could structural damage have gone undetected for that long a time?

Kathy

Kathy,

If the damage 7 years ago was enough to introduce a slight flaw in the metal/composite, and the number of cycles that aircaft did over the next few years furthered the weakening, then yes.

It looks like the buffeting by the adjacent 747 was enough to cause the flaw to "break", in other words the event that caused the failure.

This is the first failure of the tail section so AA and Airbus probably never thought to inspect for the flaw in question. The FAA has ordered inspections, so hopefully if the same flaw exists on other aircraft, it will be caught before another one goes down.

There is also the chance that this was a fluke. Severe turbulence 7 years ago introduced a flaw in the tail section of this particular aircraft. The damage went undetected for 7 years, all the time getting worse, until the aircraft encountered stress that forced the flaw to break.


[This message has been edited by skofarrell (edited 11-17-2001).]

What's the registration number of the ill-fated 300? Seems that N7082A experienced uncommanded rudder deflection 2 1/2 years before this crash.

http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?e...12X18736&key=1